"Wrigley Field is falling down,
Falling down,
Falling down.
Wrigley Field is falling down,
My fair lady."
So, what do you think would be the appropriate course of action when (not if) Wrigley Field is torn and a new stadium for the Chicago Cubs is built?
One option would be to have the Cubs play in another venue, say, Soldier Field :eek: , for a period of time while the facility at 1060 W Addison is torn down and another is built in exactly the same place.
Another would be to build the new Cubs stadium somewhere else. But what to do with the land at 1060 W Addison? I think a museum of Chicago sports would fit in quite nicely in that spot. Otherwise, it could always be re-developed into housing and commercial interests.
If a new stadium is built somewhere else, downtown Chicago seems like a good enough idea. But I think somewhere along Lake Michigan would be even better; most likely it would have to be north of the Gold Coast.
So Cubs fans and/or Chicago Dopers, what do you think?
Wrigley must remain. All of the others are passing or have passed…there needs to be continuity, or the world has no meaning.
If it must be done, the Cubs play at Soldier Field, and Wrigley is razed, only to rise from the ashes like the Phoenix, born anew, but the same. Sorta like what they did with Camden Yard.
No, really. It needs to be the same stadium, only with modern materials and no obstructed views. And more bathrooms.
“Somewhere along Lake Michigan” sounds a lot like another Candlestick Park in San Francisco. Terrible place. They should look into what SF did when they moved
their stadium.
It seems to me that it would make more sense to repair wrigley. I have no basis for this, but I assume it would be cheaper to fix it than to build a new park. Further, wrigley is an icon to which many tourists visit. Even when the cubs suck, which is more often than not, the place is packed on warm sunny days. A new park wouldn’t have the same appeal.
If they do decide to build the Cubs a new park, perhaps the field can be normal-sized?
I do agree that the fans here don’t want a new stadium. In addition to the space issues, there are few ballparks left that have character, so unless something really serious is wrong - something that can’t be fixed by temporary netting now and perhaps some more involved repairs in the off-season - I doubt a new facility is on the horizon.
Rename it the CitiGroup Financial Field and wait for Al Qaeda to take care of it.
Was that wrong? Because if I knew that kind of humor was frowned upon here, I never would have said it.
Play somewhere else, save some walls, seats and sections and build 80% from new stuff. Keep the joint right where it is. Get the blown up ball from Harry Carrie’s and grind it into dust, which you can use to rub down Sosa’s steroid bloated muscles, and then ship his arse outta town, too.
Was that wrong? Because if I knew that kind of humor was frowned upon here, I never would have said it.
Let’s see…why not copy the New Comiskey Park or perhaps a nice dome like Tropicana Field in Tampa? Be sure to sell PSL’s and raise ticket prices. Sell the naming rights to a dot com company with a goofy name. Play all games a night. If you MUST have a day game, be sure to make it a day/night doubleheader. Make sure there is enough advertising to fill in the empty spaces in the stadium. Fire the organist and play loud rock and hip hop music every 5 seconds.
Oh wait, that’s what most other ball parks are. An ugly glimpse of what a New Wrigley could become. We got a glance of that last year with the ads behind home plate, a Fox celebrity singing Take me out to the Ballgame, and all games at night.
The less change the better. Fix the structural problems and leave Wrigley as it is.
I’ve already given up on the NBA and will probably give up the NHL with the upcoming lockout. The NFL is skating on thin ice with me as well with cell phone calls from the end zone.
Okay, I’ll admit right up front that I’m a Cardinals fan, so Cubs fans can immediately disregard the rest of the pst.
The logical solution would be to rebuild Wrigley on the same site. Let the Cubs play in Sox/Comiskey/whatever-it-is-this-year, just as the Yankees played in Shea Satdium while the House that Ruth Built was -um- rebuilt. Scheduling issues can certainly be worked out.
Save the ivy, scoreboard and bleachers. Upgrade the grandstand and the infrastructure.
And the only two acceptable names would be either Wrigley or “Cubs Park.”
I am well aware that when it comes to Wrigley, logic takes a back seat.
Well, then the solution is obvious - retain the outer wall, but build a futuristic looking facility inside it. As a sop to those pesky traditionalists, keep the ivy. Ignore the howls of protest when the sketches are released and keep on building. Wait for the landmark designation to be lost, and then tear down the outer walls.
People insisting that there will be no tearing down of anything are in a dreamworld. The place is falling apart! I don’t know if this has received any press outside of Chicago, but here’s an article (also about the suspicions that the Tribune is covering the story up, since they own the Cubs; of course the Sun-Times reports this gleefully). So far, three pieces of concrete have fallen from the stadium, two barely missing the heads of fans. A safety net was installed to prevent further fan injury, but this cannot possibly be permanent. A solution will have to be found.
I’m not a Cubs fan and wasn’t raised in Chicago so I’m not as sentimental as some, but I really do like Wrigley quite a lot. I think the best option would be to tear it down and rebuild an almost-exact (slightly more modern bathroom facilities would be nice) replica. The ivy, the sunshine, and the drunk fans would still be there, so I imagine the tourists would still show up.
Moving the Cubs to another part of Chicago? Ridiculous idea.
I’m not necessarily a Cubs fan, but I’m from Downstate Illinois and I love baseball (Cardinals – best record in baseball ). I’ve been to Wrigley twice in the past couple of years, and it does have “something special.”
That said, it is old, it is falling apart, and it can’t stick around forever. That’s just the way things work.
So here’s what I would do:
The Tribune makes a deal. The next time the Cubs win the Pennant, it’s new stadium time. The bad with the good, see…they win it for one last time at Wrigley. It’s the circle of life. Or something.
The new stadium is right across the street from the old one, and pays homage to it in many ways. Modern construction and design techniques make for no limited seating and a profitable number of fans able to attend. Ivy-covered walls, and a replica of the outfield scoreboard are the most noticible references to the old stadium.
Wrigley is converted into a museum, but the Cubs play their home opener there every year.
Tear down everything but the ivy-covered wall. Rebuild from the original blueprints, making allowances for advances in construction technology in the last 90 years. The Cubs can play at Comiskey for a year while construction is going on. Name the new park Wrigley Field.
There is no other option.
BTW, I am a San Francisco Giants fan. I have no particular feelings for the Cubs one way or another, just an understanding and appreciation for the baseball traditions.
And for all of the people bemoaning the “corporatization” of sports stadiums, remember that Wrigley Field might have been the first ballpark to be renamed for it’s corporate owner. (The name was changed from Cubs Park to Wrigley Field in 1926.)
